Forum menu
What are peat briquettes like to burn on a stove? I'm in the middle of Bristol so a defra area.
Peat is a non-renewable resource, so regardless of the potential for smoke, you shouldn't use it. Or on your garden.
Yeah bit of a no no these days.
By definition, a multi-fuel stove should be able to burn anything that is meant to be burned in a stove due to the vents/base etc. Clearly you shouldn't be burning peat though (apparently - I didn't know this).
If you were to burn them, I would check on the correct set-up (ie, wood burns best with air from above, coal with air from below). A quick Google hasn't given me an answer for peat.
Please don't burn peat. It takes 1000's of years to form so unlike some tree varieties cant not be easily replaced. And it is a huge store of carbon which you are then releasing into the atmosphere.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50124001
... and I believe it smoulders rather than burns and was only used way back when in areas where there wasn't enough wood to burn.
There's zero reason to burn peat (or do anything else with it frankly) now.
Oh - fair enough. I saw it on a number of fuel websites and it looked convenient. Never tried it at all.
Anyone know of a Bristol producer of compressed sawdust logs or similar?
What about coffee grounds? I produce maybe 3/4 of a mugs worth each day from the Gagg, anyone want them?
Peat burns ok in multi fuel, use a fair bit of it, both briquettes and hand cut. Gives off a nice odour as well.
Awaits the literal flames for kilo...
In the post-Brexit dystopia you'll be able to burn Johnny Foreigner peat without any guilt thus saving the plucky British peat (but not the planet) for another day......
I honestly thought selling and burning peat for fuel was banned back in the 80s. I remember John craven talking about how bad an idea it was on news round.
It's a strange one as large parts of Finland and Ireland still manage, harvest and burn peat. It's still burnt in the Highlands and Hebrides too.
Earl - have you considered burning those logs made from compacted sawdust - a by product from manufacturing "stuff"?
We buy hand cut turf from the local turf cooperative (Iveragh CoOp about 5e a sack but probably won’t deliver to Bristol) briquettes at the petrol stations.
ElShalimo - sawdust logs would be the ideal - especially if I can find a local producer. As above - if any one knows someone local to Bristol.....
hand cut turf from the local turf cooperative
A perfect example of why the world is in a downward spiral. Peat makes coal look like a green solution, harvesting was made illegal in Ireland in 1997 under the EU habitat directive (1992) being transcribed into Irish law but then partially repealed in 2014 because people did it anyway and complained it interfered with the traditional way of life and their freedom to do as they like on private (commercial) property.
It's nothing personal kilo but it's like complaining you should be allowed to kill endangered species in your own garden because you always have, and we'll it's my garden. Or the Japanese resuming whaling, because you know, history), odd how the same people don't want to ditch TV and running water and so on though.
No wonder the thunbergs of the world are peeved.
Earl.... what's wrong with buying proper logs?
I have a couple of suggestions here!
1, Look up any local companies who make roof frames - I have found a couple locally who sell bags of offcuts quite cheaply.
As this is a waste product it has good environmental credentials - they use dried wood with no preservatives to worry about!
2, A good supplier of the compressed sawdust briquettes is on ebay - UK Timber Ltd
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Ecofire-Firewood-Eco-Logs-High-Quality-Hardwood-Wood-Briquettes-Heat-Fuel-Logs/261268694263?
They used to have some on auction - I have purchased 900kg for around £180 delivered a couple of times.
They are very dry (about 5% I think) and give off a lot of heat due to not needing to boil off the water content.
Hope this help!
Alastair
I like the smell of peat on the fire and have a good pile of hand cut bricks for the coming winter from a relatives croft, very handy for keeping the fire burning all night. As a kid it was my job to cut and stack the peat for drying (Argyll 80's) and i once found a skeleton in the bog which left me with nightmares of being pulled under the bog by a bony hand.
In some areas of the highlands etc there is very little choice as to fuel for burning so its easy to be judgmental from the comfort of a horsehair easy chair in a concreted suburban zoo.
In some areas of the highlands etc there is very little choice as to fuel for burning
So no access to oil (vastly more environmentally friendly than peat)? no access to mains electricity? Solar? Wind? A diesel generator?
Whilst I appreciate its easy to be judgmental in my semi rural (or semi urban if you prefer) locale I can't think of a single permanently inhabited property I've seen in my life time where burning anything on fire* is the only option for heat.
*obviously there will be a fire in the generation process somewhere for most power in the UK.
I can’t think of a single permanently inhabited property I’ve seen in my life time where burning anything on fire
<waves>
So no access to oil (vastly more environmentally friendly than peat)? no access to mains electricity? Solar? Wind? A diesel generator?
have you been to the Islands ... there are a number of properties where there isnt even a road to the house- there is an even larger number where getting an oil truck up isnt an option.
have you been to the Islands
I will admit I've never been to a house anywhere which didn't have electricity, be that from a deisel genny or small wind/hydro.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying "don't burn stuff" but, if you're going to (a) admit there is no need to do so (there may be financial reasons not to want to), (b) given its only for convenience/preference burn something which is a bit better than peat at heating, a lot better at not screwing the planet up.
I can’t think of a single permanently inhabited property I’ve seen in my life time where burning anything on fire
I can and they’re not in the Highlands but rural Northumberland.
another point im always reminded of - is its good to have redundancy when your rural.
When i worked in ukraine i stayed in a fancy(by ukraine standards) hotel that was not on the steam grid in chernomorsk and it was -28 on the streets.
The power in our fancy electric heated hotel went out about 6pm. and thus the heating.
I woke up to the toilet bowl being frozen over - having slept in my quilted coveralls , all my clothes and all the blankets in the room.
And while its not a regular feature in most uk cities to have power cuts.... its reasonably frequent for those of us with overhead lines (3-5 times a year for various lengths from minutes - days - the longest being 3 days in my time at current house)
I will admit I’ve never been to a house anywhere which didn’t have electricity, be that from a deisel genny or small wind/hydro.
and were they heating their house from that ?
a good example thats easy to access for referance is glen affric YHA - totally offgrid with a wind turbine and solar....
hot water and heat still come from the stove - its dependable. Keeps the batteries and the electric for the lights and comms
I will admit I’ve never been to a house
For clarity, I've been to a few huts/cabins etc which haven't but they're not lived in as an actual home.
and were they heating their house from that
In most cases no, but that's not because they need to use a stove etc, it's because for one reason or other it's preferable to them not to (in the 1920s that was practical, now it's almost always financial)
dangeourbrain - are you living in some futuristic utopia?
There are lots of isolated places in the UK where burning stuff to stay warm is the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">only</span> option.
I can’t think of a single permanently inhabited property I’ve seen in my life time where burning anything on fire is the only option for heat.
Plenty still up here in the Highlands where you need to light a fire (usually coal) to heat up a tank of hot water or heat the house up. Coal lorry comes to our village every other day.
Please don’t burn peat. It takes 1000’s of years to form so unlike some tree varieties cant not be easily replaced. And it is a huge store of carbon which you are then releasing into the atmosphere.
I get the damage to the land issue, that alone is good enough to stop burning it. However I fail to see how the carbon released is any better or worse than burning logs, timber offcuts, paper, coal, or oil. Other than greenwash bullshit.
In a well set up stove with a clean burn you are breaking carbon-hydrogen bonds and making Co2 and H20 - the same amount of energy is released every time a carbon-hydrogen bond is broken and the same amount of co2 and h20 is released. Where is the difference? Am I missing something?
Where is the difference? Am I missing something?
Not all the carbon is in organics, much of what's released is in other less combustible forms.
Not all the carbon is in organics, much of what’s released is in other less combustible forms.
What? Like diamond? Can't you at least meet my GCSE chemistry with some facts?
Where is the difference? Am I missing something?
The carbon stored in peat has been there a long time. The carbon stored in logs has been there a lot less time, so is more "Neutral", as long as enough new trees are planted to replace the old ones you're burning.
as long as enough new trees are planted to replace the old ones you’re burning.
So you could plant trees equivalent to the peat, or coal, or oil. Net CO2 (which is the issue here) is the same. This smells of goddamn hippy bullshit to me.
dangeourbrain – are you living in some futuristic utopia?
There are lots of isolated places in the UK where burning stuff to stay warm is the <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>only</span> option
Only option as in not possible in any other way, or only option as is that's all that's presently there?
My house has mains gas. I burn that to heat my house. (also have a multi fuel stove in the living room). Heating my house by electric, ground source*, solar or wind are perfectly viable, just bloody expensive to install in place of the gas so I don't do them, I'm not going to pretend that I need to use gas to heat my home though because the other options are pricey.
I'll repeat, I've never been anywhere you need to burn stuff in a fire, in an actual house to keep warm.
That's not the same as I've never been anywhere where it's what's done, or the only available (installed) option, but I've not seen anywhere where it wouldn't be possible to do it better now.
There are lots of isolated places in the UK where burning stuff to stay warm is the <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>only</span> option.
to be fair if your not exposed to it - you wouldnt know. some of the kids from the wifes secondary school didnt know that sheep are not put away at night.
So the gas you burn -that was in the ground for a long time, what is the difference between that and the peat?
Gas in the ground cannot capture and store vast amounts of CO2?
In some areas of the highlands etc there is very little choice as to fuel for burning so its easy to be judgmental from the comfort of a horsehair easy chair in a concreted suburban zoo.
I assume you live somewhere where there are alternatives, which makes your point moot.
Gas in the ground does not provide homes to wildlife and help prevent flooding.
If you do carbon offset by planting trees whats the difference, I mean if you get your logs from a sustainable forest, surely you are cutting down a carbon capture machine, but replacing it with another?
Is peat a carbon capture machine-I mean does it capture more carbon over time, other than that donated by the rotting vegetation that is initially composed of?
First answer when googling “why burning peat is bad”
What? Like diamond? Can’t you at least meet my GCSE chemistry with some facts?
G">Yes like diamonds
Things such as dissolved co2, various nitrogenous compounds, long chain organics which are more or less energy efficient to burn depending on exactly what and where they are.
Purity and contaminants and make a huge difference.
I assume you accept burning methane (CH4) produces less co2 per mol than ethene (C2H4) for instance?
@drac I get that point -see my original post. My point is that it is no better or worse from a co2 point of view than any other burnable.
I am anti bullshit - I think the green movement would go a lot further if it stopped mumbling bullshit stories into its yoghurt.
I get the damage to the land issue, that alone is good enough to stop burning it. However I fail to see how the carbon released is any better or worse than burning logs, timber offcuts, paper, coal, or oil. Other than greenwash bullshit.
In a well set up stove with a clean burn you are breaking carbon-hydrogen bonds and making Co2 and H20 – the same amount of energy is released every time a carbon-hydrogen bond is broken and the same amount of co2 and h20 is released. Where is the difference? Am I missing something?